https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=7SqirhK_M4E
Hello everybody and welcome to another episode of Embodying the Logos. Today Bruce is with me and he wants to explore the topic of family. So yeah Bruce, why don’t you introduce the significance of the topic. Yeah. So hello Bruce. Family is sort of what I wanted to discuss. I have four children myself. I also have a brother and a sister. And in my experience growing up and engaging in the world, I think family is valued highly but also maybe undervalued or not explored and taken for granted in some senses. So I kind of wanted to go and talk about the significance of the family you’re born into and or the family you’re adopted into and the family that you may engage with in the world, in your church, in your community and otherwise. So the word that springs up for me is inheritance. So there’s different ways of inheriting. So you inherit things from your father and you inherit things from your mother. Usually they go parallel in some way but traditionally that which you inherit from your mother is usually in the early years of your life and later on the father took a more involved participation in the raising. Right. So you can provide or put different spirits with that. Right. And then you also have your spiritual father, which is like a person that’s not necessarily family but is adopting a familiar role. And then you have got the father, which is basically the teacher of reality in some sense. Right. And maybe we want to since we use the word father every time and we also have the word mother nature. Right. So there’s also a motherly aspect to to being alive. So maybe we should develop those those two things like what’s the father and what’s the mother. Yeah, I think with regards to inheritance or the father, there’s I mean in the biblical sense, we’re kind of talking about people that are created in the seed of Adam. And so you have significance in the in the passing along of a particular set of attributes that Adam has possessed. That is passed along to all of his children. So you have the you have the nature of the nature of Adam, you know, sin, the curse that passes through the father. And you have the mother who is the bearer of children. And, you know, much of much of scripture describes the role of the mother as being blessed or even in some senses use the term saved by the birth of child of children. And so you kind of have this this this relationship where the mother is bearing a child who is born of sin. And that’s that’s significant because you have the you have the child born inheriting the father’s sin and the mother who also inherited the father’s sin. But now they’re birthing a new child. So they have to sort of orient the nurturing of that child in spite of its nature. And so they’re constantly they’re constantly looking toward and I think idealistically, of course, there’s lots of brokenness in the world, but I’m kind of speaking idealistically. They’re orienting their children and their household to the Lord and to what’s good to goodness. And it’s difficult and I think most especially difficult with men and boys who have this disposition that is harder to wrangle. It’s not that the sin doesn’t exist in both sexes, but it there’s a role distinction. And so that inheritance is is is is is an interesting way to see it. What do you inherit from your father? What do you inherit from your mother? How do those things play out? And I also think that like there’s another position that like if you’re going with the inheritance definition, you’re in a certain sense and inheritance. When you’re given that is sort of an undeserved wealth or given from your family, from your father, right? Or from your mother or privilege. Yeah. Yeah. And so the same is true for those who receive the inheritance of faith, that which was planned for you, given to you by your by your true father, right? By your by God. But there’s a there’s a there’s a step there in between sort of that you must be adopted into that family. So in one sense, you’re created by the father, but you’re not in the family until you’re adopted, given the gift of faith by way of Christ. So you you can’t choose what family you’re born into, right? Because you’re born with you don’t have a choice in your birth. But you also have. So in that sense, you have a very unique, specific set of family, right? You and I have different families, different mothers, different fathers and a different line of family members. But there’s a whole other line or one that unifies that puts us in the same family adopted in Christ. Right. So there’s a distinction there in that inheritance shared. Moses and stuff. Right. Like did you? Yeah. Yeah. They might say Moses or Abraham. Yeah. But I think technically speaking, all of the image bearers come from the line of Adam. Right. So you have there’s a shared there’s a sharedness there in the image bearing nature. And then there’s a sharedness in the father, God and that adoption. And so I want to slow us down a little bit because I think you might be confusing a bunch of people. So I think I think it’s it’s important to look at like maybe a biological analogy. Right. So the distinction between the man and the woman is that the mother is carrying the child. Right. And so her relationship or like she gives over the mitochondria, which are responsible for energy production within the cell. Right. Like they’re inherited specifically from her. Right. And she’s giving breastfeeding. Right. So there’s a more intimate relationship of the woman with the child than the man. And like I want to focus on on the female aspect first, because when you say. That that get beginning a child is delivers her from sin in a way. Right. Like I think we need to figure out like what what what is this in? Because like I think the best way to look at it is like the tuning towards yourself. I like there’s an egocentrism like a solipsistic element to that sin that’s that’s creating it. Do you agree there? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I think I think one of the things is there’s a so the thing that I’m thinking of is in the New Testament, the First Timothy, it says there the woman is saved through childbearing. I’ve still it’s difficult to truly understand how that functions. But I think there’s a there’s a presupposition or an expectation there that when you are bearing a child and raising them in the ways that they should go, that process of raising a child in the ways that they should go also requires that you as the mother be also oriented correctly. And so it’s not the mere having of children that is salvific in its or, you know, ultimately, you know, saving your soul. But it is the it is the laborous effort of the mother who bears children and raises them in that position that is so key. It’s it’s not that the father doesn’t have that particular role as well to raise their children in the Lord or in their, you know, as all of Proverbs would really write about is right raising. There’s a sense in which the time that the mother has with the child and her role distinction is so crucial and key that you she passes on a particular set of morals, values and ethics that the child adopts at a young age. And then the father tends to mold, shape and sanctify that process. And so I would say there’s like a parallel there between like the father, the father, the Christ is sort of a picture of the mother, fiction figure, right? The marriage. And so the father, sorry, the the father sends a son, the son becomes sort of the new mother in a certain sense, adopts you in rebirth through the spirit. And then the father sanctifies you. Right. And I’m not saying the Trinity split up in this case, but I’m saying the sanctification that occurs through the discipline of the father, the loving of the law that comes through in your personal family life as well. And that the father in his role applies the law, the morals, the ethics and mold you as you grow. Whereas the mother has a as a impact in the earliest stages that prepares you for such a molding. And I guess it’s tough because it’s going to get into more rabbit trails and there’s going to be a lot of context here. So, well, I like I want to focus on a couple of points for you. So back to this idea of the moderate, the way that I see the salvific element in motherhood and you’re correct to point out that that’s only if you approach it in a certain orientation. But in a way, the child becomes more important than you. Right. So you get drawn out of yourself and you get put in service and and through being in service, you find right relationship. I think that that’s effectively what I think the salvific element is is about. Right. And then it’s like, how do you how do you organize that? Right. That’s a completely different problem. But like, like, it’s not that way for the man. Right. Like, like the man does not naturally embody that relationship because, well, like, he’s not breastfeeding, for example. Right. Yeah. But also, like, he used to be at least outside of the home doing work. Right. Like, there’s also a problem with presence and that it was more like the child could be present with the father instead that the father could be present with the child. And so that that already introduces a bunch of barriers. And I actually have been reading this book about how families work during the like 400 before Christ to 200 after Christ or something. And they were describing this ritual. I think it was held by the Romans and the Greeks, where the father was supposed to hold up the child. Of his wife. In order to recognize the child. And if he if he didn’t do that, like, like it was supposed to be a week after the birth or something, then the child would not have legal status. It wouldn’t wouldn’t exist legally. Right. And then like you could basically do with the child whatever you want. You can just throw it away literally, which which happened. Yeah. So there’s something there’s something there where apparently that’s important. Right. Like, because like, who knows where that child is coming. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The man the man has takes responsibility. He says, this is my son or my daughter. It’s not a child out of wedlock or some other frivolous action that resulted in a child. It’s a it’s a committed act of service and obedience responsibility taking. So you’re holding the child. This is mine. I affirm that this is my wife and this is my child. And at the time, maybe they weren’t wife, depending on the scenario. But this essentially stating this is my responsibility. Right. And then the man gets bound to the child. Right. So the binding of the woman is going to labor. Right. Right. It’s automatic. Yeah. Yeah. It’s a given. Right. And for the man, it’s different. Right. And then they are also talking about adoption. Right. Like like adoption also happened. But adoption usually happened for a purpose. Right. Like like to to have someone to give inheritance. Right. So you have that with with Caesar, for example. Right. Like that. Like so what what they’re doing there is. And this goes closer to the religious, the spiritual fatherhood. Right. Like it’s like, OK, like I have created something on earth and like I want someone to to take over the reins. And since I cannot biologically produce that that individual, I need someone who holds the same spirit. Right. And so now we’re in in something that’s called what is it? I forget the word, but where where the qualities of the person are are being praised over blood, like physical blood, right. And then like when you go to the blood analogies in the Bible, right, like it’s it’s the blood of the spirit of something. Right. So it’s like the blood is is uniting one in. In the spiritual principles, as opposed to in the physical, like that analogy is really strong. So, yeah, so like like maybe we should focus a little bit on on the fatherhood and the curse. Right. So like what what what is the father supposed to liberate himself from? Yeah, I think that I think that’s also well, I think it’s also what requires an intervention supernatural from God, which is found in, you know, you could say it’s found in the sacraments. Right. Right. So you have sort of the first picture of service with marriage. Right. So you’re married to you’re married to a woman. And now you’ve committed yourself to loving this this this wife in the same way, you know, as scripture says, that Christ loves the church. Right. So you’re loving your wife. Which is which is a sort of a foreshadowing or a or a type of how you also then love your children. And so you have a self-sacrificial relationship with your wife and also your family. And so you have a difficulty there as a man who is doesn’t bear the child. And also is in sin. And I’m not saying that women are in sin, but I’m stating it’s a it’s a harder road because you’re not bearing the you’re not bearing the child. Right. You know, nursing the child, you’re not bearing the child. And so that road of service has to be fostered. It has to be molded into a child. And so that road of service has to be fostered. It has to be molded. And so while you’re molding your children, you also are being molded to be a servant. So you’re embodying the the service heart of Christ and the fatherhood of the father, you know, in this in the in this the loving spirit into your relationship with your children, which should be modeled in your relationship with your with your wife, which is why I think it’s so important to have a strong marriage of service and sacrifice that is exemplified and showed to your children. So as a father and a husband, you have a responsibility to show what it means to be a sacrificial servant of the wife. And so to put that into practice shows that to your children and as a father, it’s extremely impactful. Because there’s, you know, in some sense, like, I think children want the love of their father. That is true. I think they do. But but they have the love of the mother is sort of autumn is already there. Right. And so they kind of have to be told or shown the respect and love for the father that’s deserved and earned. And I think that’s shown with the marriage first. I don’t really think it’s wrong to say that marriage before children. And I think that some people twist that and they’ll say, well, my children come first in the household or in their life or the relationships. And I’m not saying your children need to be put aside as a father, but I am saying that without a strong embodied relationship of sacrificial marriage is very difficult to impart that to your children. And that so in that sense, the first family is the husband wife. Right. And you have an extension of that family and children and grows. It’s like the vessel that contains the children. Yeah. Like you if you break the vessel, then like you can you can do whatever for the children. But yeah, that won’t work out. So, um, like what I did taste is like a distance. Like I, I recognize the dichotomy or whatever. Right. Like, like I, you can, you can look at it as two poles. Right. Like, so, so we’ve had a lot of talk about empathy and how empathy is problematic. Right. And at a certain point, I’m like, no, no, empathy is what a mother should have for a child. Right. Like that’s, that’s the proper place of empathy. Right. Like that’s, that’s the proper place of empathy. Right. Also, because she, she kind of knows the child. Right. So she can she can properly envision what what it’s like for the child to go through something. Right. But also, like, that’s the way that she protects the child. Like that’s and and then when you’re talking about the fatherhood relationship, when you’re talking about deserving. Right. So now there’s a living up to a standard that that’s not there in the motherly relationship. Right. And in some sense, like you need to security like you need to feel secure in order to live up to a demand. Because if you don’t have the security like that, the man becomes like like a judgment upon you. Right. Like it becomes. Yeah. Like a conviction. And then you cripple yourself. Right. Like to to to live up to that. Like you. So maybe you want to talk a bit about that. Yeah, I think. Well, I’m not sure. I’m trying to make sure that I don’t go off into another world here. There’s. There’s a sense in which you as the father have to. Get respect or get obedience or and the mother kind of in the empathetic relationship they have with the children sort of gets it by default. And the children, the children, it’s not that they don’t they shouldn’t respect their parents, but the mother gives that respect or that. Epithetic posture, just as they’re as a part of her nature as the child bearer, whereas the father. Has to develop that, but in a different direction, it’s it’s not an unearned empathy or disorienting. Right. Right. Right. It’s like, OK, like I know that you’re struggling with this and I’m going to give you these tools to write to work through your struggle. And if you cry, like cry with your mom effectively. Right. It’s not that black and white. And like, this is kind of like the other part that I wanted to get in. Like, because you get this black and white, like, like, obviously, the man is fulfilling some of the feminine role and the other way around. Right. Like, just because limitations, if not because that’s actually right. But so now we kind of got a sense of. Motherhood, fatherhood, like I wanted to go to two places. I think we want to go to the role of a child and then maybe bind that into how that works together. But I also wanted to go into why God is being called the father and like how how that relates. Right. Like, like, how how does this this idea of the father expand to a spiritual father? And then. It goes into some sort of abstraction. That that we still can relate and that actually provides for us. So like, like, how does that work? Well, I think that there’s there is a distinction to be made. I think when it comes to referring to God, the father. God is the creator, which is true, and the creator of all things, the creator of the creatures. And I think there’s a distinction. There’s an absolute creator, create, creator, creation distinction. The father role is is only applied, rightly so, in those who are adopted in Christ as sons of God. So I do think that there’s a universalist sort of twist that occurs often in culture and then becomes sort of a cultural Christianity or even a cultural cultural zeitgeist outside of Christianity, whether it’s other faiths, the father. Let me let me hold you. Yeah. You’re making this claim, right? I don’t like I don’t want to argue the claim, but like, why why is it important? And what is the basis of being upon which you can make that claim? Because those OK, so those who are the basis would be, I would say, scripture, scripture speaks to. No, no, no, but like, like, I mean, like, if if I’m a secular person, I don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s like, right, right. Why? Like, what what is what is this magic sauce that you’re talking about that you deem necessary? Right. So I would say you’re you’re created as a creature who is born in sin and to become adopted in the father, right? To be your father, God becomes your father once you’re adopted into the family, right? You’re not in the family by default. You don’t choose to be in that family by default. You are a creature who must be redeemed. Once you’re redeemed, you’re then the son or the daughter. The people in the Bible, they they were adopted to different degrees in in the house of God. Right. So like, it’s always a matter of degrees like that adoption, or at least your your ability to live up to your sonhood, at least. Right. I do. Yeah, I mean, I do think that the people embody that position better and differently than others. But I don’t I don’t adopt the universal claim that all created image bears are children of God. They are creatures. No, no, no, no. I’m I’m I’m I’m not making I’m not trying to make that claim. Right. But I’m like like like you’re pointing at the distinction. And like, I agree with the distinction. Right. Right. Right. Right. There’s people who are proper fathers and there’s people who are pieces of shit. Right. And like we we can all say that at least the pieces of shit aren’t embodying a divine fatherhood, whatever that may be. Right. Like so. So and then like there’s there’s people who have divine aspects in the way that there is a child. Maybe they’re not did disconnected on on one area. Right. And so like so I’m trying to point out at this spectrum. Right. And like, like, I agree with you would like if you want to complete the whole spectrum like that. The latest imposition upon you. Right. And that that requires you to change or reborn in in in that spirit. But but that spirit. Do you use a cultural Christianity right like that spirit just blows with the wind at some level in in Western society and at different levels in in in Western society. Right. Anyway, so yeah, like, do you want to you want to point at the special stars in this context like like what what makes this special star special? I mean, I guess I’m trying to understand the specialness. You’re saying that what you’re connecting specialness to the sin, right? Like, is that the main identifier? Right. So like, what what is this problem that needs to be overcome? And how is how is living a Christian life allowing you to do that while a different life isn’t allowing you to? Oh, I see. Well, I mean, right. Right. I think people people being born of the born of the sin, you know, being the sons of Adam, which is Christ refers to as the sons of Satan. These these people are while able to do some good and some righteous acts, their heart is not oriented to God when they act, at least in in every sense, in most senses. So I would say that the problem here is or the special sauce is the person who when they act are are acting in accordance with the spirit insofar as they can, because I do believe that there’s a there’s still a battle between the worldly and the spiritual. You know, the flesh and the the spirit. So the specialness there is when a person acts, are they acting in attempts to to strive toward God or are they acting merely as sons of Adam or sons of Satan doing good moral things for, you know, for the for the likes of man or for, you know, quid pro quo or for their own particular pragmatic outcomes. Right. That’s and that’s one way to do it. You can live and you can live and do things hoping for a good result. And that that would be like a moral position. Or you can live hoping to glorify God and all good and or bad things that come out of those particular decisions or actions are given glory to God. And I think that’s the that’s the distinction. That’s what the specialness of the special sauce comes in is when a person acts, their orientation, you know, that that would be the the directional change. So and then the claim is that that is being observed at some level by the child and can thereby be embodied at some point in their lives as well. Yeah, I think so, because there are children that can do. I think they’ll they can see moral acts occurring or good and bad acts from birth, you know, from a child. They have this disposition. But there’s there’s a difference between the orientation of that. And I think that’s exemplified by the father and the mother as a marriage. And so to to extend that to the role of the father and the mother. Right. So so the way that I’m thinking about it is, is you have something that’s natural to you. Right. So that basically flows from your DNA in some sense. Right. It’s like, like, it’s just that which happens. And then there’s things that require effort of the will that basically go against the will of the father. That basically go against your nature. Right. Like relating to like a second nature or super nature. Something that that’s about that nature. And so if we look at the mother, at least in relationship to the child, right, like what she’s acting out. Is more in line with her nature than what the man is supposed to act out to which the child like. Yeah, I think so. I think in one sense that we are all called, including women, to die to ourselves. But in another sense, the man, I think, has to embody that sacrificial aspect more so the dying to himself, the servant of the household, the leader. And in order to lead, you must serve. Right. And so the one who leads must also serve the most. And so that’s and that that situation happens as a result of the role placed on men and women. You know, the man is dying to himself by serving his household and his family. And a woman is also dying to herself by serving her household and her family. But there’s a role distinction of how that plays out. And in one sense, the woman has an easier, I think, if to really use a maybe it’s a poor. Easier in one dimension. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. In one sense, although there’s a difficulty in a whole other sense for for women when it comes to the submission to the to the husband. And so I think that I’m not trying to throw stones at women in any sense. I mean, in fact, I would hold the position that women are more wonderful and in a in a certain sense, more favored in the eyes of God than even men. Not ultimately. Right. But I mean, like the gifts bestowed upon bestowed upon women in there and their respect do, I think, is higher than men in society. Yeah, they carry the glory in some right. Right. So, yeah, I’m thinking like I’m going into a really weird direction. But the the male privilege, right, like and the patriarchy, right. Like, I think actually is is touching on this point. Right. It’s like the. They’re pointing at an imposition that needs to be made upon the man. In sacrifice. Right. But but they’re they’re doing it from an untitled position or like a middle out thinking is they are like the man should be doing this in the sense of an obligation instead of like that. It’s an act of grace from the man. Right. Like it’s that. So I think that’s the point. Like, I guess a default instead of looking at how how do we attain the virtue to live up to the ideal? Like, is that does that fit with your? Yeah, I think I was going a similar direction. I think I was going to say that. I think I was going to say that. All right. Okay. And Dan has a question that I want to ask you two. You said you were like like going into各uno from a spiritual perspective. Was that one or was that because it has that V kay in front of it, right. Do you think that that was prominent towards socializing or reading? the sort of male privilege, right? Or the privilege is your privilege to not have this role, empathetic, that’s a bestowed upon you responsibility of bearing the children in spite of your other needs and wants and desires. Whereas a woman, I think there are women that fight that, right, and maybe there’s a particular reason that God providentially puts women in these strange positions where they fight against the child they bear. But that would be extraordinarily strange and rare, whereas women are like by default, bound and empathetic and, you know, pouring into their children and the world by that extension. Whereas men have the privilege of, in a certain sense, of not having that by their nature, right? Or not having that role bestowed upon them. And so in that sense, I think what the sort of male privilege Wocosphere is saying is like, men aren’t shackled in this way, therefore they can go out and achieve and work till their fingers hurt or stay up all hours of the night coding or in achieving material wealth, gain and otherwise, because they’re not burdened with this, with this role, right, or this particular set of attributes. Yeah, I don’t know if I want to call that a positive because- I’m not either, no, I’m not calling it a positive. That’s more like an excess that is coming from these qualities, right? It’s like, yes, that’s important to exceed your limits, right? But it’s also important to honor your limits, right? Like when that becomes excessive, right? Like there’s a workaholic, like there’s a slave type element that can sneak in there. Yeah, yeah. And that would be the incorrect use of those gifts, yeah. Right, so the other aspect that I was thinking of as since it’s less natural for the man to be civilized, let’s just use that word, right? Okay. Or maybe to go back to break from the egocentrism because it’s just a longer path, right? Well, especially if you look at the mate choice and all that stuff and like what’s required of the man and that you don’t fall into marriage because like there’s no social structure that puts you in marriage or keeps you in it, marriage is a different problem. Then like what the man does is like he has to intentionally live that journey more so than the woman. And so with the living of that journey, the man receives understanding that the woman, or revelation, right? That the woman does not receive. So yeah, I think maybe it’s, well, I don’t know if we should go into that now, but I think that’s an important point, right? Like why man should be in positions of leadership or something, right? Like if properly cultivated at least, right? Like the man has made a different journey and there’s different qualities with that journey. Sure. No, I agree with that, yeah. So back to the fatherhood of God. So you’re putting up on the creator creature distinction. Sure. So I was reading Thomas Aquinas and it was a glossary and creation was defined there because like these words are really difficult, right? Creation was defined there as bringing into existence that which did not previously exist in matter, where matter is used in the Aristotelian sense. Was that understandable what I meant? Yeah, I get what you’re saying, sure. So is that the way that you’re using the word creation? Even if I am using it, I don’t think I need to mince the definition there. I think there’s still a, I think even in that definitional position, there’s still a creation creature distinction or create, sorry, creator creature distinction. Right, well, yeah, right. But it’s interesting, right? Like if we’re talking about co-creation, right? So like the act of will of man can imitate that process, right? Like my act of will can make a spoon out of metal, right? Like that spoon was not in the metal before I made the spoon, right? So there’s an imposition of the will and in some sense, I fathered that spoon. Oh, I see, yeah. I would say there’s a distinction there between we’re only creating out of matter, right? So that which is materially existing, we’re not creating new matter. I think like even science goes in and would affirm this in their position. This is Aristotelian matter and so the Aristotelian matter is not referencing like physics, like it’s referencing potential, right? Or like it’s referencing like matter means like it’s related to matrix, right? Like motherhood, that which births. So material is something from which things are birthed but there’s also like DNA, which is held within material, right? But from there, there’s something birthed as well, which is not strictly material, right? So there’s that the matterness like extends a little bit beyond just mere material. Yeah, well, I would say there may be a metaphysical or something beyond the matter, but even those are subjected to the creation, sorry, the creator, right? And so while it may be true that there are particular things that we can create, we’re still within the bounds of what the creator has given to the creatures. Right, that’s why we use the word co-creation, right? I’m like, I like the word manifestation better than creation because if we manifest something, that means that we manifest something from something higher, right? Sure. But yeah, I like that better too. Yeah, I think that’s a good way to say it because that gives proper orientation to the God of the binder creator of all things, yeah. Right, so to go back to this idea of fatherhood, right? So it’s like only by virtue of the principle of spoon, for example, right? That’s given to me by creation, right? From God the father, can I make a spoon, right? And like without that, like spoon wouldn’t make any sense. So is that a good way to think about the fatherhood of God, like that basically he allows, he… I think I’m following, I would say yes. Or is that things that I’m missing? Maybe that’s a better question. Well, I don’t know actually, maybe not. One of the things that I think tend to happen is once we start getting into the definitional aspect of these characteristics or attributes, they tend to look like a flattening, whereas I would say that I’m not looking to flatten but orient to the ultimate, if that makes sense. And so I’m trying to bring all things under God as I see them, as I understand them, and as I reorient to that direction. So my constantly transforming my thinking to put things correctly oriented under God. And so when creating an object and using material to create, quote unquote create an object, well, I would say that it’s true, the language of creation is a little dicey there. We’re only given the option to create because of the will of God, right? So that’s kind of the… Like I think maybe the best way to think about it now is like you have a factory or something, right? And you have to press a button. And then the machine creates the toy or whatever, right? Did you create the toy? Well, not really, right? Like that’s where you have your word manufacture, right? Like we’re using something else to bring the toy into being, right? And like without that, we couldn’t make the toy. Yeah, yeah. I mean, you could, we could state, I would say in that case, the machine is the tool of the creator. So it’s the means by what you know. Yeah, yeah, but the machine holds something, right? Like it has something inside that’s not inside of the creator, right? Especially if you’re just a factory worker, maybe if you designed the machine, it’s inside of you. But like if you’re a factory worker and you’re just pressing the button, like you know it. So you have a dependency relationship for your production on that machine, right? And the father of that machine, right? Like someone brought that machine into being. And so I think that dependency is, it’s transferred to spiritual matters as well, right? It’s like, oh, like in our family, we do this this way, right? And like the only way that I learned to do it that way is because it came, like I inherited it from my family’s tradition. Yeah, that’s right, right. So you as the father are putting forth the values or the traditions or the methods by which things occur and they’re being imparted into your children. I would say that in that case, there’s a kind of example, whereas the father is pushing the button of right oriented faith that then manifests in his children. That makes sense. So you’re not just, you know, it’s not, I don’t wanna turn God into a vending machine, you know? But what I’m saying is it rightly oriented instruction would bring out what you would expect and what God would expect to see out of those children, right? When you push the button, you wanna see, you have a machine that makes a spoon, you don’t want it to come out and make a fork, right? So you press the button and if it makes a fork, you’re not using the right machine, right? Yes, yes. And so that would be the way. So like it’s interesting because when you say rightly oriented faith, what you’re saying in other words is there’s a way of being, a way of conducting yourself that is universal. And so what you’re teaching your child is not in the specific, like in the specific action, but in how you come to act. And getting a right relation to that aspect is what allows you to universally adapt yourself to what is required. Yeah, yeah, I think so. And I also, I would hold that, I don’t think that that’s a product of man’s powerful will. I believe in order for that to occur, I think there must be a supernatural intervention of the spirit that is then embodied in the person that allows them to move in that direction. Okay, can you give me a non-Christian explanation of what that would look like? Like what is this supernatural intervention? Well, I don’t know if I can give a non-Christian explanation of that. That’s tough actually, because at that point, I think I would be allegorizing the nature of God and the scripture that speaks to it. So I don’t know that there is, this is I think the radical nature of the position is that there isn’t really a parallel in the non-Christian frame. As far as I could potentially go would be, there’s a sense in which a number of ideas infect the heart of a person that changes the way they act. Right, so I think if you were to take maybe the story aspect of it, when a story is told and then a person hears the truths of that story that maybe they hadn’t heard before or they hadn’t heard put in that particular way or articulated, or they were just in a different place to hear it correctly, that changed the way they decided to act the next time they did something. They get swayed. Yeah. Like I’ve actually done a Bible study and there’s things like ecstasy, right? Like ecstasy is a word that came up, which is a secular word or used a lot by secular people, but it basically means to be put under a spirit, right? To be taken outside of yourself. And so if we go back to this idea of motherhood, right? Like the child takes the mother outside of herself, right? Like her sense of self envelops the child as well, like literally, because like the child was literally part of her, but also like spiritually where she sees part of herself and maybe the more important part of herself live on within that child. And so what that does, right? Like there’s an imposition made by that spirit, right? Like something is broken within that person and that allows for a new sense of self, right? Like a new way of being in relationship. And like that, is that what you mean by, what was the wording that you used, the spirit? Intervention of the spirit. Yeah, yeah. There was something that, yeah, that infected or intervened. And that’s what people talk about when they do ecstasy or whatever drug, right? Like they’re like, oh, I had this feeling and like I was in love, right? Like they’re swept up in this spirit that they usually don’t have access to. Yeah, yeah. And I think that that’s sometimes the difficulty of having a position of faith, because there are things that manifest in the world that you can even sort of take a pill to get, right? So you can, I think the difficulty is distinguishing feelings of correctness with actual correctness, if that makes sense. How does one distinguish between ecstasy and being truly convicted by the spirit, right? Or born again, or the feeling that comes over you when you see your child born for the first time, right? And so- So I actually wanna reference the talk that I had before like two days ago, I recorded with Ahmed, and he was talking about sincerity. And so he was connecting sincerity to basically being captured by a spirit that allowed him to authentically participate in what he was doing. And he was basically yearning, and like I use the word addiction or drugs in relation to that, right? Like to this sincerity, because it binds you, right? Like it drives you forward. And so, yeah, like there’s things, material things that can induce that in, right? Like there’s these drugs that simulate this binding yourself to your activity. And that seems divine, and in some sense, it is divine, because there’s a divine aspect to that, right? But you’re talking about orientation. And I think the orientation is related to integration, right? And like, what are you integrating this into? Like under what are you placing your experience? Yeah, yeah, because it’s difficult, right? Because you can experience something, but that doesn’t mean what you experienced was gospel, right, I’ll just say, you’re a good news, I’ll just say, or rightly oriented. It’s fleeting. So I’d say one has to get a spirit of discernment to be able to rightly correct those experiences from mere experiences or rightly oriented experiences. And this is a constant struggle, I think, for everyone, including, and most especially a struggle for those who are Christians, right? Because you’re constantly fighting this feelings versus spirit or feelings versus reality. Is this the Holy Spirit convicting me, or is this my own particular worldly fleshly idea? Right, and that’s a constant issue. Or like part of both or whatever, right? Yeah, so you have to have a way of correcting that. So I think this is the point where we can get into childhood, because I think this is the role of a child, right? You were talking about the child discerning the spirit in the father. Just like the woman has to have a certain submission to her husband, the child has to have a submission to the mother and the father in somewhat different ways. And that requires a lot of the child as well. And then like, when we start with a physical child, right? Like with the natural child, maybe that’s the word that I want to use. Their awareness, right, is non-existent, right? So basically there’s, I don’t know, like there’s something happening within the brain of the child in relationship to the love that it receives from the mother, where the summons start to be made from the breasts associating with food, right? To more complex things, to eventually asking things of the mother, right? And then we start getting a development of a sense of self and relationship as such, right? And then a responsibility within that. And at a certain point, and like, I think this is the hard point, and the thing that we as a modern society have neglected to look at too much, is like we get a responsibility ourselves over the way that we get into relationships with the other and ultimately God. And I think at that point of responsibility, I think that’s what we want to look at, like what is required of us. So yeah, maybe you want to take it from there. Yeah, it’s tough, because how do you know what’s required of you as a child? And that is the role of the parents, right? And I think also that’s, well, I mean, the fifth commandment, right? So it tells you, honor your mother and father and you’ll prosper, right? So it’s the only commandment with a material promise, right? And that’s, and is it material promise or is it spiritual promise? I think it’s both. And so the role of the parents is to honor one another and the role of the children is to honor the parents so that they might prosper. And so the way by which they understand the role is the teaching given to them by the parents, but they grow in the, they grow in application of that teaching, right? So that’s how they may learn. So you see it with, you know, the way that they understand the role you see it with the baby and then the toddler, you know, they have some understanding but they don’t really know why they have to do what they’re doing, right? They’re just doing it because they’re told to, yeah. I’m sorry for distracting you. No, I’m sorry. It’s interesting because I had, I did a Bible study and this is Mark seven, I think but I don’t think it’s seven because I looked it up in seven. Anyway, it’s talking about Caffarnum and which means comfort or like not comfort, yeah. To comfort someone like toast in Dutch. Anyway, at 27 they’re talking about Jesus having taught in the synagogue and they said, it says all stood there confused that they asked among each other, what does this mean? A new teaching with authority. He gives the order to unclean ghosts and they obey him. Right, and like that stood really out to me, right? So it’s a new teaching, right? And you were talking about children growing in the application of the teaching but the teaching is from a place of authority, right? A lived authority, right? And that was in contrast to the Pharisees who were reading from scrolls effectively, right? And Danny says he commands unclean spirits and they obey him and like the Dutch word obey is willfully listen, right? So they willfully like they submit themselves to the authority, right? And so this all gets introduced like by these people saying what does this mean? Like they’re confronted with this new reality like where someone is living in such a way that uncleanliness, right? Is subjected, right? Willfully subjected so it’s no longer in war, right? Like if you look at your mind as a kingdom, right? And like there’s things assailing it from the outside and then there’s unclean stuff happening inside. And then so there’s a way to relate to the unclean where it’s partaking, right? Like it’s integrating as opposed to opposing, right? Like this is the opponent processing versus cooperative processing. So there’s a way in which even the unclean can enter a cooperative union. And like I would argue that a child is unclean in some fundamental sense because it hasn’t been cleansed, right? And so there’s a way of being the following of a teaching that affords that in a person, right? And then these people, they’re just living their lives and they’re like they’re confronted with this potential. They’re like, what is this? Yeah, rightly so, right? So they’re getting teaching from the ultimate teacher and their will has no choice but to submit. I think that’s correct. I would say all throughout the scriptures when people encounter God, they fall in reality. When those who are born again hear the word, their hearts burn within them, right? So there’s right teaching that results in right obedience. Well, like I would argue that you have the Pharaoh as well, right, and the Pharaoh hardens his heart. So I think that’s also a response. Yeah, both hand happen. God hardens and Pharaoh hardens, right? You have God that does it first and tells Moses that he will and then it happens again. So it’s both. Yeah, yeah. Well, it’s a relationship, right? So like both are partaking in that. Yeah, I’d have to study that more to have a good opinion about what that all means. But I’m just pointing at that that is an option, right? So there’s two options, right? There’s a submission, a willful submission, which is basically saying, well, there’s someone who is good natured but they’re misguided. Yeah. And there’s people who are actively pursuing evil. Yeah, I think it’s hard because you want to see in your children, you want to see them obey because you know what’s best for them. And in most cases, we’ll just assume not horrible parents here, okay? We’re talking about parents who are trying to instill the proper values in the children and have them come, get what’s best for them out of it. And so they kind of, you want them to do it, but at a certain point, you want them, especially in the younger ages, you want them to do it because it’s gonna, you don’t want them to fall off of a cliff, right? So you scream at them to not fall, right? And they stop, they stop. But at some point, you want them to do it not because you merely told them to and they don’t want to get hurt, but you want them to do it because they now know why. Right? Ultimately, you’re not interested in merely correcting behavior. You’re interested in a child’s orientation being directed toward the Lord. And that’s a lifelong process, but you want that to start in them. You want that to happen at some point. You want them to be convicted in such a way that their changes are not merely just behavior modification. Or externalism. Yeah, yeah, well, it’s interesting. I had this experience with my mom and I told my mom, don’t do that. And she asked why, and I’m like, because I said so. Right? Some things don’t require explanation, right? When you walk over a cliff and I say, Bruce, stop, you should just stop. I don’t have to explain to you that you’re at the cliff or whatever because that’s not what’s relevant. It’s relevant that you don’t fall off the cliff. And maybe I explained to you that that was happening and maybe I don’t. Right, right. But there’s a sense in which you’re telling someone not to walk off the cliff because you don’t want them to die or you don’t want them to get harmed. Ideally, that child who you’re telling not to walk off the cliff stops because they also don’t want to die as opposed to just stopping. And in other words, if that’s how they always lived and they just never grew in understanding and they merely had behavioral change, I don’t think you would see someone getting the proper orientation. They would just be behavioral change. But the problem is, right, I get where you’re going, but I kind of disagree because I don’t, when we’re talking about a cliff, right, like a cliff is fairly obvious, right? It’s like the problem isn’t that the child doesn’t understand that you can fall off the cliff, right? The problem is that the child is there not understanding that they might be falling off the cliff soon, right? That’s the problem. And that problem isn’t necessarily solved by more knowledge, right? Like that’s solved by having a right orientation and attending to what is important instead of like picking your nose. Yeah, I guess that the cliff analogy tends to, almost every analogy tends to fall apart at some point, but the point I’m making is you want a person to act in conviction and not externalism. Yes, well- And that’s for the appearance of others, right? But the problem is, right, like, like there’s, we’ve been talking about collective sense making and there’s also not so much sense making, but like a collective awareness, right? Like when you’re in a company, especially if you’re the boss of a company, you can’t keep track of the whole company, right? Like, and like when you’re in your body, like I don’t know what’s happening on the back, on my back, right? Like I can’t keep track of that. Like I can hardly keep track of a bunch of things, right? So like I rely on other people to notice things about me. And like, maybe it’s like, oh yeah, you’ve got skin cancer. Like then maybe like, I’m like, okay, like I’m not gonna pay extra attention to my skin because like, this is not a good thing. And like, I need to pay attention to that. And I think that’s maybe what you’re pointing at, right? It’s like, okay, like you’re living in this thing that’s real to you now, you need to be awareness of this thing that’s real because if you don’t have awareness of it, you can’t live a good life. Yeah. Right, but there’s also things that don’t fall in that category, right? That we still need to have a relationship with. So the thing that happened with my mom was a small problem that I could solve, right? And if I’d had to explain it to her, then I’d have to go through all of these hoops to basically explain my behavior so that she could understand why the state of things was the way that it was. And I was like, that’s not relevant, right? Like, it’s like, nobody’s getting better. My spending time. I think also there’s a sense in which like, you’re telling, let’s take this example, you tell someone to stop doing something to your mother because you said so, there’s a sense in which they grow an understanding to know that they should listen to your requests, right? As well. Like they don’t ignore you. Yes, right. Well, yeah, but also like, like this is where I got a problem, right? It’s like, if I say this, like I’m not saying this for no reason, right? So like, why are you challenging me on what I do? Like, cause I got really upset about that. It was like. This is the problem with children and parents all the time. Why are you telling me this? Why can’t I do this? Yeah, yeah, but it’s not the other way around, but. Right, in your case, yeah. But even so, like, it’s like, trust what I’m saying, child. Why are you questioning what I’m saying? You know? Why is there a question? And you want them to understand that you have goodness in your reasoning as opposed to just, if I don’t listen to my dad, I’ll be in trouble. I should stop, you know? That’s not the ultimate goal is to make obedient children for the sake of it. Right, well, yes, yes. So there’s something beyond you that they can trust, right? And that’s like, cause you don’t make the best decisions, Bruce, right? Like you make mistakes. Right. Like your children are gonna catch you on it even, right? So it’s like sometimes they’re right. Sometimes they are, yeah. Even in their rightness, they’re wrong. Like I went into this parable a couple days ago where Jesus is talking about the father who has two sons and the one son says, I will do what you ask of me and he doesn’t show up. And the other one says, I won’t do it. And then he does show up, right? And then it’s like, well, why is this son who says, oh, I’m gonna show up and doesn’t show up a better son? I wanna hear your explanation. I’m not sure actually. Like everybody gets stuck on this one. This is a good, I like this one. Yeah, say it again for me so I can get that. So the parable is the father has two sons. He goes to the first son and the son says, screw you dad, like I’m not doing this. And then he goes to the second son and the second son says, yes, dad, I’ll be there. And then the next day, the son who said he wouldn’t be there shows up. The son who said he wouldn’t be there shows up. And the son who would be there doesn’t show up. Now who’s the better son? Oh, I see what you’re saying. This is sort of prodigal son, but not quite. Okay. I know they’re both bad. There is no better. That’s the question I would say. That’s the answer I would say. There isn’t a better. There may be a better in that circumstance, but ultimately no. In that circumstance. Like there’s just one that’s better. Like my explanation, I’m fairly certain that Chittin is the correct one, is the son who says yes to his father and doesn’t show up is the better son. The one who says no but does show up is. Is in rebellion. In rebellion in some sense. And therefore he can’t be the good son. Well, that’s interesting though, right? Because in one sense, is rebellion merely. So here’s the thing. How can you make this claim that the first son’s not in rebellion by not showing up? You don’t know that. Well, you don’t. But like even if he is, right? Only if he was actively malicious in responding to his father, he would be worse. I don’t know how, yeah. It’s tough. Like if he said that to deceive his father. But even then you can make a case for him. If he’s deceiving his father so that he doesn’t have to show up the next day. They’re both just as bad. And in fact, I would say the second child is better because I would much rather see your action than your words. Yeah, but that’s where you’re just. That’s where you’re just mistaken. Because this has to do with, like I think, right? Is like, I’m considering, right? Since there’s not much more information given. Yeah. That both of these people are not in bad faith, okay? Okay. Because like if you get bad faith situations, like you’re screwed anyway, right? Like you cannot be a good son. Sure. But like, for example, the first son gets sick or like the son that says yes gets called away or whatever, right? Like whatever the reason is that he doesn’t show up, like he lets his father down. Yeah, yeah. But he is participating in the body of the family. Right? Like he’s maintaining union in the family. Right, but we also assume, are we assuming bad faith in the case of the second that he shows up in bad faith? Because how is it that we don’t know that he’s not had a change of heart? Well, okay. But if he had a change of heart, he didn’t privilege the union of the family in the first place. Right, but not everyone does the right thing the first time. They have to have a change of heart. But then they’re less forward. Yeah, see, I don’t agree that they’re lesser forward. That’s the difficulty for me. Because there’s not enough information for me to make the claim on that. Okay, I can draw to my life. You can do what? I’m sorry, you broke up there. I can draw this into my personal experience, right? Oh, okay. Mm-hmm. So I have a lot of issues with doing stuff. So there’s two ways that I can relate to this, right? So I can draw into doubts, because that’s what the guy says who says no, right? He draws into doubt that which is going to happen. Right, so now I create a problem for myself and for the other person, right? And I might still show up. But I create a disorder. Okay. Now, I can say I’m going to submit to what’s given to me, like you give me this opportunity, I’m just gonna say yes. And then I end up not being able to fulfill that obligation. Sure. Now, what I did is I supported the body until I ran out of capacity to participate within the body. And I think that’s what fate is, like literally, right? Like you just go in with the assumption that these things are gonna point towards the good, and then things go wrong for whatever reason, right? Like, and I think that you need that first, like you need the fate modality for anything to function. Because if you don’t have the fate modality, but like, yeah, I’m gonna show up anyway, right? Now, you can’t plan anymore. Because there’s nothing that says that this other son will show up, right? Like it’s not reliable. And therefore, like the existence of the body cannot hold. Like the binding has been severed, even though the participation is still there. Yeah, I see what you’re saying. And I think rightly so, you don’t, you don’t, I don’t want to encourage people to be so flippant with their, right, and not deferring to authority. And so I would agree, like, if you can’t rely on a person, that’s a terrible thing. So if that’s the case, then, you know, I would have to go with your first assessment. But in the case of the position, of the story itself, I just don’t, I don’t think there’s enough information to go there. But if you’re stating that there’s a person who’s unreliable and has a history of it, then yes. But that also just goes to the position I was saying, which is that’s not a person who’s had a change of heart, because if they’re unreliable, then they’re not, you know, they’re not changing their patterns, they’re not showing me any of their works that, you know, that come out of a good heart. So, you know, and what I would say is like, a good heart without works at all is useless. So, you know, that’s kind of- No, no, I agree with uselessness, but it’s still in union. Like, and I think this is where we go wrong, right? Because like, we can’t measure by use. Like, for example, right? Like you have this person in church, like they’re just there, like you can’t, well, like that’s kind of me in some sense, right? Like you can’t get them to do anything, right? Right. You just, but they’re there. And is that- Yeah, there’s this other person, like, he’s like, yeah, I’ll do this, I’ll do that. I mean, he does like 10 things, but the other 10 things he doesn’t do. Yeah, I don’t like that. I would much prefer a person also do and not just be there. Yeah, some people don’t have- But I do think that in some sense, there are some people that just being there is doing something. Yeah, no, no, that’s it, right? Like if you’re handicapped, right? Right. At a certain point, you can just be present. Like that’s all you can do. And there’s still value in that. And there’s people who aren’t handicapped, at least physically, right? But like their spirit is so bound up in whatever is possessing them, like that’s all they can do. Right. Well, unfortunately, Manuel, I have to go. It’s getting late here. I have a meeting in less than 15 minutes, so I’ve gotta get on that. Yeah, well, then we’ll close it down a little bit. I still wanted to get into this being a child and being a child of God thing, because maybe- Yeah, we can get into that. I mean, yeah, we can get into that another time if you want. That’s gonna be, I would say that’s gonna be like largely theological in nature. Well, I wanted to expand it into the family as well, right? And then how the family comes together as one, because I think the unity aspect- Yeah, right. That’s kind of where I would go with that as well, which is child adopted new family, and now you have one big family that you’re adopting, one unified family. Right. Yeah, let us know in the comments if you wanna see that, or if you, like I kinda did a little bit different this conversation. Let’s see if people like this. Yeah, sorry in advance to everyone that doesn’t like it. Yeah, Bruce, do you wanna give a takeaway of- Just for this one, sorry, I had to go so early, but the takeaway I would say is honor your mother and father. That would be the takeaway. And the other part is recognize who are fulfilling the role of mother and father in your life, and maybe if you don’t have someone in that role, seek them out, because- Yeah, yeah, seek them out, and one of the best places to find them is in the church. Yep. Yep. So yeah, thanks everybody. Leave a comment, like, subscribe, and we’ll see you again in the next episode. Thanks Manuel, I’ll see you later.